Pregnancy Info HOME

i think some people on this board don't realize that vaccination is not necessarily IMMUNIZATION. you can be completely vaccinated for pertussis, say, and still contract it. measles outbreaks have happened in completely vaccinated areas. and to those who think taking the chance to vaccinate is just a little risk, i'm sure you'd think twice if that little risk was your son or daughter's "fate." a coworker of mine lost her infant granddaughter within the same hour she was vaccinated with the DTaP shot. she arched her back, screamed more terribly than they had ever heard, and fell into a coma. within minutes she was dead, and her pediatrician ADMITTED it was a reaction to her shot. that couple no longer vaccinates their children. and to lucy - your story is VERY heartbreaking, but pertussis didn't necessarily kill your daughter - the incompetent medical community in the hospital you took her to did. i am so sorry for your loss....if i were you i'd have sued them all for medical neglect. lastly, THINK about what we are vaccinating against! they've added hep b to the roster along with chickenpox - since when is chicken pox a deadly disease? sure, the immunocompromised can have problems and they should be vaccinated, but not the population as a whole. hepat_tis b? my infant doesn't do drugs or have s_x. i hear that a cancer vaccine is on the horizon, then a diabetes vaccine, and of course the list keeps growing. it's all $$$ in the hands of the vaccine manufacturers, you can be sure. but what really worries me is NOT the diseases we vaccinate against. what worries me is what is in those vaccines - we've got these things being cultured in animal dna and aborted fetal tissue. who can guarantee something won't go crazy within our systems because of this? i mean, they discovered that the infected monkey tissue used to create the polio vaccine has been found in human cancer cells. this is all experimental, in my opinion - science cannot determine the effects vaccine after vaccine will have on our culture until much later. and what about the mercury used in them? the formaldehyde and aluminum? sure! inject them into MY baby's bloodstream! and lastly, i can prepare myself for the symptoms of disease a or disease b and watch for those symptoms since i know my kids aren't vaccinated. then my ped will treat them as though they might very well have those diseases rather than writing them off as something else...for example, a friend of mine's daughter (FULLY vaccinated), contracted pertussis from her grandfather. she gave the disease to her unvaccinated cousin. both kids had the same pediatrician. both had the same symptoms, the same duration of sickness, the same everything. however, because the vaccinated child was vaccinated, even though tests for bronchitis came back negative, he wrote in her chart that she had bronchitis. the cousin, unvaccinated, was diagnosed with pertussis. interesting to me - at all costs these things (vaccines) are made to appear to the public as though they are foolproof - even if that means tampering with diagnoses.

Kate ; you are so correct about the whole issue but people will argue with you . there are so many who are pro vaccination but the number of those who are becoming cautious is growing and so is the number who are against it through accessing an over abundance of knowledge . I can tell you that both the provac. and antivac. and likely, almost everyone here on this thread are so well informed that they could pretty much literally challenge a physician face to face, some even have . Some have read bookshelves of information maybe even yourself . BUT although I am in great disagreement alike you are, and it even makes me quite angry at times in regard to where vaccination has come to this day . No disease is cultivated and designed in such a way in which it can wipe out the entire earths population probably not even natural anthrax therefore neither can vaccination but either way the total results can be devastating enough . Death by vaccination is very low and ultimately unnoticable but complications are high and in some cases very high and possibly epidemic in areas of heart , kidney , liver, etc problems . Because we live in a global economy it may take many generations to become naturally adapt to all nations specific virus weaknesses ,an example would be what the native peoples of North America had to endure by us coming here . We know that viruses have been connected to very poor hygene and that has become worse than ever ... we are not using proper disposal technics and are for the first time ever drinking the same water in which we flush down the toilet no longer containing good minerals . Well water is not without its problems either . I agree chicken pox and many Flu shots etc are not to be taken as deadly diseases and I too would like to see these whole insane lab cultivations come to a dead stop and let the results speak for themselves because most statistics do not favor immunization as a treatment . This has been proven every time because vaccinations have all and I qoute "ALL" have been developed quite some time after viruses have weakened within a population .Because of the nature of my job I am walking into every clinic and hospital in existance and unlike a decade ago we are now being introduced to enlarged signs requesting every individual to cleanse hands at the provided dispensary for reasons of the local virus of the month . I myself have suffered complications from vaccination and there are many stories which have been told and are being told by others . The biggest reason why I am so in favor of letting the natural course of things prevail is because altering it has hit every area of our lives ie even our crops and fields are being so called vaccinated and we are left with nothing more than shelves full of supplements to compensate for everything from minerals and vitamins to delicate amino acids and oils . Breifly I want to touch on a softer unrelated topic , this being Bechamps refusal to expose his discovery for the same reasons that the antivac'tors reasons are , but Pastuer disagreed and ran with it . Well dispite this contradiction if I would not have taken antibiotics on several occasions in my life I a__sure that I would be dead and so would many others . So in relation to the dramatic alterations to the human bodies natural course of immunization through poor hygenes (in whatever context) and vaccination I a__sure that if everyone stopped vaccinating all hell would break loose wth devastating results at least until it ran its course like SARS had in the Toronto area . The question is , would the development of SARS vac. have compensated for the natural course and its results ? (obviously not ) I know I have spoken an earful and am with you on the topic but I leave you with this > vaccination is of course not immunization and vaccination does not apply to everyone or every virus but it is measured by the bodys capability to deal with it within a given population so I disagree with all those who go on and on about d__ned if you do and d__ned if you don't and the media and medical profession should clarify the degree of risk properly just as the SARS vaccination was implimented by the media ....oh thats right there wasn't one . oh well I guess it ran its course anyway without the vaccination. The question is to you myself and everyone else here , Using SARS as an example would you consider it if there was an outbreak in your area and a vaccination was available . I think we would all be thinking very hard about it yet some would not hesitate .

Thanks for the reply. First off, just so everyone knows, I am not anti-vax. I AM anti-all-these-vaccines-every-single-kid-is-required-to-receive though. I feel there is a time and a place and each child should be looked at as an individual. We want our daughter to have the teta__s (which comes with the diphtheria portion) shot. I think the risks of teta__s is big enough to warrant vaccination in this case. We would rather she get natural chicken pox than the vaccine, which will wear off and leave her vulnerable later in life, when it is more risky. If she hasn't gotten chicken pox by about 12/13, then we'll most likely get her vaccinated. (sigh). Same thing with mumps - for our son - if he hasn't been naturally exposed. Being infected later in life can cause sterility in males. Now, about that SARS vaccine - if they had one, and if there was an outbreak, would we get it? I honestly can't answer that. I'd first of all want to do more studies on how the disease is "caught" and what means I can take to lessen our chances of catching it...not every germ or virus, as you know, causes illness in every person who comes in contact with it. A strong immune system can fight off a lot on its own. That's why we b___stfeed and avoid sugars (not natural fruit sugars) - because sugar seriously cripples the immune system. Anyway - a SARS vaccine would probably scare me as much as the anthrax vaccine...and I've read a lot about those poor soldiers and the awful side-effects they've gotten from the anthrax vaccine. So, I can't really give you an honest answer. Like I said, it would require a lot of research on my part to weigh the pros and cons of everything.

SARS is very scary, not as scary as Ebola. There were cases of SARS amoung people who had no contact with people who had the virus. It was spread by an infected person who used a toilet in an apartment building. Several, alot more than 50, people became infected with the virus. Immediately I thought if a vaccine was available I would probably get it, but then I had misgivings about what the possible side effects would be and the fact that the population at large would be the guinea pigs in this case. It probably wouldn't be until a large number of people were given the vaccine before it was found to cause other problems. Personally, I don't like blind risk benefit a___lysis.

I agree < I hope myself using SARS as an example was not to out-of-stretch for ones imagination but I had to quickly think of something people are familiar with , but I just want to be sure that people understand the mention KATE had made of animal DNA being exposed to people to create vaccines . (Simplifying things by directly going into the human bloodstream is never without dangers) . I'm just not sure why we get so crazy about mercury and vaccination when the real issue is dental and mercury although we should get crazy about mercury regardless how it's used . I'm sure Kates mention includes flouride in water in her list and everyone elses . The list goes on and on and science and humans have gotten so deep into unchartered territory it is without wonder why people are becoming increasingly cautious and even angry and defensive. Vaccination is just one small part of the better "this than that concept" but since we are here and we care about our children I must admitt it is good to see so many people take it seriously and hash it out here . I am even more glad to see people not going against it but much more cautious .

The difference between the dental mercury and vaccine mercury is method of delivery into the body. Your fillings slowly decay releasing minute quant_ties of mercury or a longer period of time. In such small quant_ties the body is able to process it and quickly remove it from the body. Of course the more fillings you have the more exposure. Non amalgam fillings would probably be best, but it is the most economical of choices.